Guys I've got a good starter for an actual discussion maybe. I've only recently been getting into my Mark Fisher (yeah I know) and something struck me, both while reading his stuff (mainly referring to the Vampire Castle essay here) and secondary literature discussing it. Some of it, including parts of Fisher's own writing, sound an awful lot like petty infighting to me, but there was an overarching theme that emerged which I really resonated with:
The left of today has lost sight of class analysis and this has paralysed it and made it easy prey for manipulation. The main reason for this (and that's what excited me) is that people aren't so much rejecting the notion of class, but that nobody knows what the word is supposed to actually mean in our world of today. We need a new and modern definition of "class" that makes it obvious that class is at the heart of ALL struggles for equality and justice.
So, what could that definition be? Or do you disagree with the argument because a) you've got a perfectly good definition already or b) class is dead to you?
I'm asking because I do agree with the argument but am not sure about what a good modern definition could be.
(Also wasn't there a thread on here a while ago that exemplifies this problem perfectly where one guy bashed on another guy about class and racism?)
This is reminding me of Thomas Frank (of the Baffler) and his book:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What%27s_the_Matter_with_Kansas%3F_(book)
Thomas Frank is a sort of Social Democrat, but his point is applicable to this discussion. He basically argues that Fox News (etc.) have effectively and successfully redefined the word "class" in an effort to target and dismantle real class solidarity. Its been a while since I've read it so excuse me if I am a little off base...
He argued that conservative media had basically redefined class to purely (superficial) aesthetic qualities. They made it so to their Fox News viewers: class is NOT your economic position as a worker, but instead class is your
consumer tastes and lifestyle choices.
ie) "Regular People" drink coffee and beer, "The Elites" drink lattes and wine. "Regular People" drive pickup trucks and Hummers, "The Elites" drive hybrid/electric cars. "Regular People" go to church and love their family, "The Elites" get abortions.
Its basically trying to make it so instead of class being about your economic position, class is instead about the non-traditional quality of your lifestyle and consumer habits. So even if two people are both making $50k a year, depending on their lifestyle and purchasing habits, they are a "Liberal Elite" or a regular person.
And this then applies across real economic positions. So essentially, a multi-millionaire conservative politician or TV personality is not an "Elite", BUT people who make $50k a year that get Starbucks lattes ARE a "Liberal Elite".
You can really see this backwards mentality has expanded in the 18 years since the book. Especially with Tucker Carlson (comes from a VERY wealthy family), Trump, and all the other rich conservatives that do this fake "populism" that rallies against "The Elites" and Amazon in bad faith, while actually just hammering home social "culture war" issues to further divide conservatives from understanding class solidarity. They have no interest in actually taking on Amazon and billionaires, they just use it as a carrot on the end of the rope to double down on culture war outrage, and redirect viewers away from true class solidarity.
So again, rather than class being its true essence of workers vs. owners (proletariat vs. bourgeoisie) they have transformed it for their viewers to instead be conservatives. vs liberals.
Its definitely true, and as leftists we have to identify and address this dynamic when talking with centrists/conservatives (heck, and liberals... since they also have their own version of this to a certain extent).